any negatives to 2-way floorstanders over 3-way?

[KungFuNat]

i know that the RF-7 is a 2-way speaker, and was wondering if there are any negatives to this type of design over a full 3-way speaker. is it just a matter of matching drivers precisely, or is it just an engineering desicion?

[popbumper]

Well, a 2-way design does not comprehend frequency ranges as precisely as a three way system would, since there is only one crossover point, and more frequencies get "shared" between only two drivers.

Of course, building a two way system, in general, could be either an engineering decision (perhaps to reduce crossover distortion), or cost consideration (providing more speakers to a buying public at different price points), or matching drivers. The possibilities are pretty widespread. I guess the best answer would come from the engineering department itself.

Popbumper

[edwinr]

There's an argument that one full range driver is inherently more coherent than other multi driver designs. A properly designed two way system can offer much of the coherency of a single driver system and some forum members seem to think they are superior to three way designs. From what I have heard, less expensive (read more poorly designed?) three ways tend to sound messy, lacking clarity over similarly priced two ways. On the other hand I have heard the Legend KLF 10's (2 way)and the KLF 20's (3 way) side by side. In my opinion the KLF 20's were superior in the midrange featuring smoother sound, clearer voice reproduction and greater projection. I am soon to audition the Klipschorn 3 way horn speakers I will probably buy (within the next couple of days) and I am hopeful this three way system will fulfill my expectations that a properly designed three way will blow away my current Klipsch two ways.

[leok]

I have always found that a Klipsch 3-way has a more coherent dynamic response top to bottom. I have prefered my RF-7 for classical chamber music because the single high frequency horn produced a more realistic reproduction of instrument upper harmonics (I always thought because there was no crossover at 8 KHz or so). The woofers on the RF-7 do have a tough time keeping up with the horn on the lower midrange. I think this is a reasonable comparison of the two Klipsch styles (2 and 3 way) that I have tried (RB5, RF-7, Forte-II, Chorus-II), as they come from the factory.

However, thanks to DeanG, I have obtained PIO caps for my Chorus-II tweeters (midrange was already modified with PIO caps). With those caps installed, the Chorus-II has a remarkably clean high end, and I am not at all aware of the midrange/tweeter crossover as I was before. So, If you consider doing substantial crossover work on a Klipsch 3-way, you can have it both ways: coherent dynamic response and clean high end all through a 3-way with upgraded crossover caps.

Leo

[TBrennan]

Generally, in compression driver-horn speaker systems, a 3-way will allow a wider range of frequencies to be horn-loaded.

For instance the old "real" Klipsch 3-ways were 3-ways because PWK used a cloth diaphragm mid driver in order to reach down to 400 with reliability. Such drivers don't do good highs, thus the need for a tweeter.

Now with an aluminum diaphragm driver one can crossover down at 500hz AND get good highs, thus one can do a 2-way if one can accept a 500hz crossover.

HOWEVER, such 1" throat aluminum drivers do have slightly (some think more than slightly) attenuated highs. Thus even fans of such drivers will often add tweeters. However the use of EQ (at the expense of some efficiency) will add sparkle to 1" drivers though many hornys eschew the use of EQ.

In the case of the Klipsch RF series I think they went with a 2-way for economic and enclosure size reasons. Thus they chose a small horn that only goes from around 2kz on up. However that done, and not needing to reproduce mids from a compression driver, they could optimize the driver for good high frequency response.

I always wondered why PWK didn't make the Heresey and Cornwalls 2-ways with high-performence aluminum diaphragm compression drivers. Since they had higher crossovers from the woofer than the Khorn, and also gave up efficiency, they could easily have been 2-ways with EQed highs.

Well ole PWK had his reasons, good ones of course, I recall he was big on what was "available". And I wouldn't doubt that a single JBL, Altec or Stephens driver would have cost PWK more than both the Atlas mid and EV tweeter did. The old man was always cost-conscious, that he got such sterling results from some very ordinary parts was a large part of his genius.

[D-MAN]

I would add that a quality 2-way of equal performance with a quality 3-way should cost more.

This is because the frequency spread required of a 2-way requires higher quality components (i.e., each has to do more) than a comparitively performing 3-way.

This is dependent on the term "quality" which I will leave up to you...

DM

[D-MAN]

A buddy of mine who used to work in a speaker manufacturing place told me that in the late-70's/early 80's that the wholesale on the EV T35 tweeter (aka K-77) was around $11.00 per unit. They used to retail at $35.00 ea.

And now they go for what?!

PWK made some decisions as any business man would...

Maximize profit for as little initial investment as possible.

That is not to say that he choose the best that he could (even for the money); he chose the best for the initial investment...

DM

[hwatkins]

To do a speaker correctly one would first assemble the components in the box, measure and then build the appropriate crossovers. With three ways this is going to be by (at least) a 1/3 more difficult job. So the issue probably becomes work vs, reward scenario.

I find that my ear prefers a well made three way in every side by side I have ever done. When listening with the uptmost criticallity my ear hears the following:

Full Range - very smooth, extended midrange type sound that definitely leaves part of the sound elswhere.

2 Way (w/horn) - generally speaking with a fairly high Xover to the horn, there is a smoothness (not as smooth as the FR)with quite a bit more dynamics.

3 Way - When the three way is heard I notice the difference in how the mid freqs sound better than the two way. The three way is generally fairly colored and spikey (when you listen and when you look a response graph), but it seems to cover a very broad freq range with outstanding dynamics.

The tradeoffs will always be there.

A big however - with some of the new fangled 2" compression drivers and the right horn a two way can rival a good three way. The interesting thing I see happening is there seems to be a trend in box building to have a LF and Mid cone with a HF horn. This may be the way to approach the economics of a three way in a more reasonably costed way.

[Cleve]

In a two-way design, the woofers are being asked to carry quite a bit of the frequency range. As a result, there can be issues with "gargling", especially when very loud, low frequencies have an audible, negative effect on the reproduction of midrange frequencies, like a female vocalist. I found a few posts about this issue on the Audio Asylum forums.

I think that's one of the possible reasons why the CF-4's were replaced with the KLF-30's which were a three-way design. The KLF 30's woofers cross over to the midrange at 825 hz, whereas the CF-4's extended the woofer load until 1500 hz.

Now the RF-7 extends the crossover point way up to 2200 hz - a full 700 hz higher than the CF-4 crossover. I'd have to wonder how well this actually works, although the RF-7 with smaller drivers and smaller "slim-line" enclosures doesn't have nearly the 'bottom end' bass potential of the older designs. It's really designed to need something like the RSW-12 or RSW-15 to 'fill in' the bottom so 'gargling' may not be a potential issue.

[IndyKlipschFan]

Edwinr.. Took you 100 posts and your just now getting k horns???? lol.. J/K

I would agree with most on here... A properly designed 2 way is better than say a poorly designed 3 way. (The proposed Jubilee I believe to surpass the K horn was in fact a 2 way as well. If that is possible.)

Compareing your KLF's to a K horn in a corner in say a rectangle room.(long walls) That will be like going from a chevy normal everyday car to a formula one car... Sound and performance wise. I am sure we will feel your smiles and ohhh myyy's wherever we are at that time.

[Colin]

Great post Tom-

The key to any driver, crossover system is the hyper-critical 1 to 6kHz range. Here the ear is super-sensitive at all volumes. Makes sense that one high quality driver and lens should cover this area. I think any manufacturer is taking a major risk to crossover in this region. Now having said that, it makes sense then for a second driver to handle sub-1kHz region. A crossover at 400 would be better: a crossover at 100Hz, even better. Therefore, it also makes sense for a third driver, a metal tweeter, to handle the bright treble above 6 kHz.

Nice post whatkins, when listening with the schoolmarm criticality, to loudspeakers I seriously auditioned, in my own home, with the same music and equipment, for EnjoyTheMusic.com, my ear hears:

Full Range - smooth, midrange response with unusual high amount of dynamics and low power, and organic wholeness to vocals and acoustic instruments, also because of the absent crossover, seems to be a better quality driver

2-way (w or w/o horn) wider sound stage, more definition to the instruments, improved texture and tone, greater power handling, more volume

3-Way (w or w/o horn) definitely extended frequency response, usually much better imaging of all instruments, widest soundstage, room around instruments, none seem top be missing, recording engineers sonic effects stand out

I think loudspeaker manufacturer have no choice but to short-change the unseen crossover and its components. Loudspeakers are made to a price point, even at $7500 retail for new Khorns. With Avant-garde Audios large bright horns going for $20 grand and up, I think Klipsch needs a no-holds barred flagship horn like a retail Jubilee, for $15,000. Hell, if that sells 100 or more copies a year, then they need an even better designed model at $20 or $25K!

I thought super-sensitive walnut-oiled Cornwall 1s, with their B2 crossovers, were more like 21/2 way systems, with the woofer allowed to run free

[edwinr]

----------------

On 6/29/2004 2:50:11 PM IndyKlipschFan wrote:

Edwinr.. Took you 100 posts and your just now getting k horns???? lol.. J/K

----------------

Yeah, well, some people are slower than others.

But I'm still uncertain about the colour - see my new post query 'Black Klipschorns?'

[Deang]

I think the tuning of the port for the RF-7 might be a little high, and these speakers really benefit from wall or corner placement. Naturally, this design helps keep IM lower than usual, since the cones aren't hopping all over the place. The cones on those things are stellar performers. They are stiff and light, and the anodizing helps to prevent ringing. The midrange is clean, fast, and mean. The RF-7s are tops in my book. A great speaker.

The midrange might not be as dramatic as the Klipschorn or LaScala, but the treble is first class -- and crushes the K-77 in clarity and extension. Sorry.

[Colin]

and crushes the K-77 in clarity and extension?

I am but a student in this hall of professors, but the overall effect of the classic Klipsch corner Khorns is a legendary realism. The RF-7s, oh excuse me, do you own a pair? I dont. The RF7s are more of the typical tiss treble of many cone systems.

[Deang]

"...but the overall effect of the classic Klipsch corner Khorns is a legendary realism."

Absolutely, I won't dispute that. My statement was confined to the treble.

"The RF7s are more of the typical tiss treble of many cone systems."

Yes, the treble can be a little splashy and down right irritating with poorly recorded material. For example: Led Zepplin's "Since I've been Lov'in You" definitely isn't the best recording to showcase the RF-7's HF abilities. Like PK said, "If you don't like what's coming out, you wouldn't like what's going in."

The 1.75" pro style titanium driver behind that Tractrix horn is a monster, and I'm sure if you sat a K-77 next to it on a table -- the comparison would be rather laughable.

You heard one terrible recording with an integrated amp devoid of a preamp section -- you shouldn't be so quick to issue a final judgment.

Yes, upgrading and modding the crossovers will definitely smooth things out and take things up a notch -- but with good ancillary equipment, careful placement, and decent recordings -- they are very good right out of the box.

Dean